Jonathan Sandys's Blog, page 2
November 18, 2015
CHURCHILL: “According to Holy Writ” – Part 3 – “The last word in ethics”
“The last word in ethics”
Winston S. Churchill in India (c.1896)
Before leaving for his posting with the 4th Hussars in India, Churchill had heard it said that Christ’s gospel was the last word in Ethics. School had made Churchill a scholar of the English language, but the word Ethics, was unfamiliar to the young, brash 22-year old soldier, who yearned for action and adventure. Ethics [are] concerned not merely with things you ought to do, he was told, but with why you ought to do them.
While studying the Bible more closely, Great-Grandpapa came to the conclusion that the Sermon on the Mount was the last word in ethics. He maintained that the more closely we follow the Sermon on the Mount, the more likely we are to succeed in our endeavours.
To claim the Sermon on the Mount as the last word in ethics, is no great feat. However, in order for it to be used as a significant marker of Churchill’s personal faith, I felt we needed to prove his statements meant more to him than mere words. Pro-American basketball player and Coach John Wooden once said: The true test of a man’s character is what he does when no one is watching. Did Great-Grandpapa practice in private what he professed to believe in public? Too often today our political leaders claim to be God-fearing, but their actions behind closed doors tell a different story, so was Churchill any different?
Before one can successfully delve into the evidence, we must first recognise the difference between Ethics and Morals.
Ethics are principles that govern a person’s or group’s behaviour or, in Great-Grandpapa’s case, countries at war. Churchill believed there was an ethical way to fight war, and that was not to indiscriminately bomb civilian populations. You and others may desire to kill women and children, he responded when urged to carpet bomb the German population into submission. We desire…to destroy German military objectives.
Great-Grandpapa has often been criticized for bombing cities such as Dresden, however, leadership sometimes demands hard decisions that many claim unethical, until you consider the character of the leader giving the order. The choice between life and death is clear, and your response to attack defines your ethical beliefs and moral compass. Are we monsters? He shouted in devastation at a cabinet colleague while reviewing the results of the bombing of German cities. Are we not going too far? – Morals are a person’s standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do, and in Great-Grandpapa’s emotional outburst we see his morality more clearly.
To wantonly bomb large populations as Hitler did without consideration to those innocent you are killing, is both ethically and morally repugnant. In tears, Churchill, in response to his son Randolph’s remark that saturation bombing during the Second World War was an equal horror, lamented, Tens of thousands of lives were extinguished in one night…Old men, old women, little children-yes, yes, little children about to be born.
Ethics have been misused and abused to manipulate populations and justify evils. Hitler and his Nazis twisted the meaning of ethics to suit their own needs. An eye for an eye was the spin Hitler promoted, and it was propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels assignment to reduce Jews to less-than-human status, enabling Hitler to justify their murder in the gas chambers, They’re not human beings; they are animals, Goebbels said in 1939. [Killing them] is not a humanitarian [question] but a surgical task.
Over the next few posts, we are going to examine Churchill’s character, the ethics that guided and the morals that kept him righteous.
Subscribe today so you don’t miss:
GOD AND CHURCHILL:
THE EVIDENCE EXPOSED
November 20, 2015
CHURCHILL: “According to Holy Writ” – Part 4
“…you shall know them by their fruits”
An in-depth analysis of exactly what Sir Winston Churchill himself professed to believe
Jonathan Sandys, a great-grandson of Britain’s wartime Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, along with former White House aide and current senior associate pastor of Houston’s Second Baptist Church, Wallace Henley, reveal compelling evidence that overturns the erroneous belief that Churchill was either an agnostic or an atheist.
FOLLOW JONATHAN ON SOCIAL MEDIA
FACEBOOK: wscspeaker * LINKED-IN: jmesandys * TWITTER: JonathanSandys
RECEIVE A DAILY CHURCHILL QUOTE VIA TWITTER
ChurchillQuote
CREDITS
QUOTATIONS
“The last word in ethics” – SANDYS/HENLEY: God & Churchill: How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny Changed his Troubled World and Offers Hope for Ours, p.100
“Christ’s gospel” – Ibid, p.15
“Ethics [are] concerned” – Ibid, p.15
“The more closely” – Ibid, p.92
“The true test” – https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/203719-the-true-test-of-a-man-s-character-is-what-he
‘principles that govern’ – http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/ethics
“You and others” – SANDYS/HENLEY: God & Churchill: How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny Changed his Troubled World and Offers Hope for Ours, p.109
‘a person’s standard’ – http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/moral?q=morals#moral__8
“Tens of thousands” – SANDYS/HENLEY: God & Churchill: How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny Changed his Troubled World and Offers Hope for Ours, p.111
“An eye for” – MACLEAN, French L.: 2000 Quotes From Hitler’s 1000-Year Reich, p.166
“They’re not human” – Ibid, p.86
IMAGES
Churchill in India: https://richardlangworth.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/1896Horseback.jpg
GOD & CHURCHILL, front cover, 2015 – (US-Edition)
November 16, 2015
CHURCHILL: “According to Holy Writ” – Part 2 – “Christian Civilisation”
“The Battle of France is over. I expect that the battle of Britain is about to begin.
Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian Civilisation”
How sad that in the wake of the Paris attacks, I am to begin this part of the GOD & CHURCHILL: The Evidence Exposed series with this quote. It is sadly apt for the occasion and bears as much truth today as it did when Great-Grandpapa spoke of it in 1940. However, in order to understand its current relevance to us all, we must first take a moment to analyse exactly what Churchill meant by Christian Civilisation.
Christian Civilisation is not exclusive to Christians, but is instead inclusive of all nations and religions that embrace freedom as their way of life, while adopting the tenants of that remarkable code, Churchill wrote of the Ten Commandments in his essay on Moses, upon which the religious, moral, and social life of the nation was so securely founded.
With the increasing wave of attacks around the world from extremists who act in the name of their gods, we are witnessing a repeated threat to our way of life, to our Christian Civilisation. The future currently looks bleak, and as we reflect on the past and how Hitler devastated a world with his evils, let Great-Grandpapa’s words stand as an encouragement to us, and a warning to those evil-doers who planned these atrocities and are devising more devastation:
“WE SHALL NEVER SURRENDER”
History has shown that at times when Christian Civilisation is threatened, a figure, bearing the same strength and determination Churchill displayed, rises from the ashes. Great-Grandpapa firmly believed that God’s power and authority was mightier than the enemy we faced during the Second World War. In his speeches he repeatedly quoted the Bible, and unlike Hitler, he pointed the hope of Britain and those enslaved nations of Europe to God. In God’s good time, he told the British people, the new world, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
In recent years, historians have written Churchill off as either an agnostic or atheist. They have stated that like many modern-day politicians, Great-Grandpapa didn’t actually believe in God or in the words of the Bible, but that he rolled God out, or quoted Bible verses merely to curry favour and win the support of the British people, however, the evidence in God and Churchill disputes that position completely.
In writing about Moses and his encounter with Pharaoh in Egypt, Great-Grandpapa was clear in his conviction stating, we may be sure that all these things happened just as they are set out according to Holy Writ. It has sadly become a modern fad to pit science against faith in God or the truths in His Word, and even though in Churchill’s day, science provided him with an explanation of how the story was possible, he still professed to believe the literal words of the Bible. Great-Grandpapa recognised what rational Christians have accepted for years, that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science and exists to run in tandem. Agnostics and atheists have perverted the purpose of science, twisted it and forced it like square pegs into round holes to suit their needs. They have used its explanations and discoveries to support their argument that God cannot exist because science explains everything. They miss or wilfully overlook the possibility that science might actually exist to explain concepts we were previously or are currently unable to explain, and that far from disproving the existence of God or His abilities, it actually enhances and reinforces that which the Bible states as fact. We believe that the most scientific view and rationalistic conception, Churchill wrote, will find its fullest satisfaction in taking the Bible story literally.
Further on the matter of Moses and the Exodus from Egypt, Great-Grandpapa believed and stated that although science provides an explanation of how the events may have happened naturally, it is silly to waste time arguing whether Jehovah broke His own natural laws to save His Chosen People or whether He merely made them work in a favourable manner.
Great-Grandpapa recognised that these stories were recorded by human beings who at the time were unable to explain or understand the concepts science has enlightened us to today, however, they were transmitted across the centuries with far more accuracy than many of the telegraphed accounts we read of the goings-on of today. Churchill, by his own confession believed in the accuracy of the story and challenged science to disprove the records which have been preserved to us from these dim ages. Scientific discovery in Great-Grandpapa’s opinion, far from supporting the agnostic or atheistic view that there is no God, only fortifies the grand simplicity and essential accuracy of the recorded truths which have lightened so far the pilgrimage of man.
Subscribe today so you don’t miss:
GOD AND CHURCHILL:
THE EVIDENCE EXPOSED
November 18, 2015
CHURCHILL: “According to Holy Writ” – Part 3
“The last word in ethics”
An in-depth analysis of exactly what Sir Winston Churchill himself professed to believe
Jonathan Sandys, a great-grandson of Britain’s wartime Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, along with former White House aide and current senior associate pastor of Houston’s Second Baptist Church, Wallace Henley, reveal compelling evidence that overturns the erroneous belief that Churchill was either an agnostic or an atheist.
FOLLOW JONATHAN ON SOCIAL MEDIA
FACEBOOK: wscspeaker * LINKED-IN: jmesandys * TWITTER: JonathanSandys
RECEIVE A DAILY CHURCHILL QUOTE VIA TWITTER
ChurchillQuote
CREDITS
QUOTATIONS
“The Battle of France is over” – CHURCHILL, Sir Winston S.: “Their Finest Hour” Speech, June 18, 1940
‘that remarkable code’ – SANDYS/HENLEY: God & Churchill: How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny Changed his Troubled World and Offers Hope for Ours, p.104
“we shall never surrender” – Ibid, p.86
‘we may be sure’ – Ibid, p.120
‘Christianity is sheltered’ – Ibid, p.126
‘We believe’ – Ibid, p.119
‘it is silly’ – CHURCHILL, Sir Winston S.: Thoughts and Adventures, p.224
‘transmitted across’ – Ibid, p.225
‘records which have’ – Ibid, p.225
IMAGES
Vive la France: Author’s personal collection
GOD & CHURCHILL, front cover, 2015 – (US-Edition)
November 6, 2015
CHURCHILL: “According to Holy Writ” – Part 1
Winston S. Churchill with President Roosevelt, on board HMS Prince of Wales
Over the past few posts I presented the evidence of Churchill’s prophesy at 16 years old. CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – highlights the first time that we really see the hand of God working in Great-Grandpapa’s life. “London will be attacked…I shall be in command of the defences of London…and it will fall to me to save the Capital and save the Empire.” – Without the interference of “that High Power” Churchill referred to, I demonstrated that his words could not have come to pass exactly as he had spoken in 1891.
The evidence of God’s intervention in Great-Grandpapa’s life was only the starting point of my research into the spiritual side of Sir Winston Churchill. My aim in writing God and Churchill was not to prove the existence of God, but rather to explore whether Great-Grandpapa had a faith in God, and whether the God he believed in did interfere, as he maintained, throughout his life.
God does not force Himself upon a person but rather offers opportunity for us to open our eyes, see Him, and acknowledge Him. Therefore, in order to prove that Great-Grandpapa had a faith in God, I felt the place to start would be to review what he himself professed to believe.
Together over the next few posts we will be exploring exactly what Great-Grandpapa claimed to believe.
What did Churchill believe about the Bible?
Was it merely a glorified history book that was written thousands of years ago and has little relevance today, or did he believe it to be the literal word of God?
Did the Bible influence Churchill?
Did he live out in private what he purported in public to believe? Or was it just words on a page that he would draw upon to encourage himself and others to keep fighting despite the odds against a general Allied victory?
What were Churchill’s thoughts on Moses?
Who was Moses to Churchill, and in his opinion was the story of the Exodus fact or fiction?
Did Churchill ever acknowledge the existence of God?
Or were his references to God and his Biblical quotes in speeches merely political rhetoric to gain the support of the British people?
Who was Jesus to Winston Churchill?
Subscribe today so you don’t miss:
GOD AND CHURCHILL:
THE EVIDENCE EXPOSED
November 9, 2015
CHURCHILL: “According to Holy Writ” – Part 2
“The last word in ethics”
An in-depth analysis of exactly what Sir Winston Churchill himself professed to believe.
Jonathan Sandys, a great-grandson of Britain’s wartime Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, along with former White House aide and current senior associate pastor of Houston’s Second Baptist Church, Wallace Henley, reveal compelling evidence that overturns the erroneous belief that Churchill was either an agnostic or an atheist.
Available now in both the United States of America and the United Kingdom.
CREDITS
QUOTATIONS
“London will be attacked” – SANDYS/HENLEY, God & Churchill: How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny Changed His Troubled World and Offers Hope For Ours, p.4
“According to Holy Writ” – Ibid, p.120
IMAGES
HMS Prince of Wales: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wi...
God & Churchill front cover
November 4, 2015
CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 5 – ‘That High Power which interferes’
Statue of Winston S. Churchill
CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” Parts 1 through 4, offered an in-depth analysis of Great-Grandpapa’s prophesy in 1891. Although demonstrated that luck could only circumstantially lay claim to the first part of the prophesy; “London will be attacked,” it could not be credited further. “I will be in command of the defences of London” and “It will fall to me to save the Capital and save the Empire,” are two elements that can only be explained if Churchill were either a clairvoyant, which he wasn’t. Or, Providence, Destiny, or the “High Power” Churchill spoke of actually did interfere as Great-Grandpapa maintained, “in the eternal sequence of causes and effects.”
Wallace and I were convinced that the elements I have highlighted could only have come from God. However, we recognize that there will still be some skeptics among us, and for that purpose, I offer the alternative: What if Churchill had either been a successful and popular politician, or had never been born? Where would we be today and what would the world look like?
Before we erase Great-Grandpapa from history, I wish to establish that I am not changing anything apart from his role in history. Nothing Churchill did prior to the Second World War was ever decisive enough to dramatically change events as we know them today. Therefore, let us start on the journey first erasing Churchill’s life completely.
The Allied Powers won the First World War in 1918. On June 28, 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was signed and enormous financial reparation demands were place on Germany. Land was seized, factories and industry taken over by foreign powers and in a matter of months, Germany was brought to her knees. In 1933, forced into a corner and in a desperate situation, the German people welcomed the advent of Adolf Hitler, a German Corporal, wounded in the First World War, who promised them a new Germanic Empire, a Reich that would last for a thousand years. The starving and despondent German people overlooked this zealous anti-Semite, who pointed to the Jews and Communists and claimed they were responsible for Germany’s hardships. With no condemnation from any of the other European nations, Hitler began to round Jews up, take their businesses and homes and segregate them in ghettos.
Over the following six years, with British spies ferociously reporting back to London, Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin and then Neville Chamberlain ignored the facts that Hitler was fast rearming Germany despite the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles. No word of warning was given in the British Parliament, and in 1935, unbeknownst to the British people and their European allies, Germany was now equal with Britain in air power. Baldwin continued the policy of disarming Britain, as did the other European nations, as per the agreement reached in 1919 for a unified peace in Europe. In 1936, Germany over took Britain and France in military strength.
In 1937, Stanley Baldwin retired as Prime Minister and Neville Chamberlain succeeded him. Chamberlain was aware of the increasing danger and flew to Germany in 1938 to seek terms of peace with a leader whose country by now dominated Europe in military strength. On his return, Chamberlain waved his famous document guaranteeing peace in our time. Sadly, that peace was to last less than a year.
The Nazis on the March
On September 1, 1939, Hitler marched unopposed into Poland and Britain did nothing. On September 3, 1939, his hand forced by his Cabinet, Chamberlain declared war on Germany. There would have been no reason for Chamberlain to resign in 1940, as soon as the Nazis had finished with France, Britain under Chamberlain would have easily succumb. Hitler would then have swept through Europe, overtaking Russia and then Italy, his next target would be the United States. A full European force would board every ship and plane available and a direct attack on America would begin. Unprepared and ill-equipped, President Roosevelt would have no doubt mustered together a force to hold Hitler at bay for a while, but it is unlikely that with a full European force and the British Empire in Hitler’s hands, America would stand for long. It is pointless to speculate on the Asian continent, but with Australia, North America, South America, Africa and Europe under the Nazi thumb, it is likely that Germany would have an issue dominating the world.
During the 1930s, Winston Churchill was the lone voice warning of the ever-increasing threat of Hitler and the Nazis. It was because of him that Prime Minister Baldwin was forced to begin rearming Britain. It was because of him that attention was paid to Hitler and his Germany, and in 1940, Winston Churchill was the ONLY person in Britain who was willing and able to lead the desperate and unprepared Britain.
“We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the new world, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”
If Winston Churchill had been a popular politician, he would have probably have served in the MacDonald/Baldwin coalition when Hitler became Chancellor of Germany. He would have no doubt remained in the cabinet during the Baldwin administration. As such, he would have been an avid supporter of appeasement when Chamberlain succeeded Baldwin as Prime Minister. Finally, on September 1, 1939 Churchill would have woken with the rest of the world, war would be on the doorstep, and history would have tarred him also with those terrible words, “too late.”
Winston S. Churchill at Chartwell 1964)
History has shown us that the loss of Winston Churchill either before or during the Second World War would almost definitely have led to defeat. Providence, or that “High Power” Great-Grandpapa spoke of, was kind enough to keep Churchill away from mainstream politics at all the significant moments that lead up to the Second World War. He was on the backbenches of Parliament throughout the 1930s and remained there until the outbreak of war on September 3, 1939.
‘My warnings over the last six years had been so numerous, so detailed, and were now so terribly vindicated, that no one could gainsay me.’ He recalled from the night of his appointment as Prime Minister. ‘I could not be reproached either for making the war or with want of preparation for it. I thought I knew a good deal about it all, and I was sure I should not fail. Therefore, although impatient for the morning, I slept soundly and had no need for cheering dreams. Facts are better than dreams.’
It is our contention that the evidence supports Churchill’s own belief that ‘without the assistance of that High Power [God], which interferes in the eternal sequence of causes and effects more than we are always prone to admit, I [Churchill], could never succeed.’
Subscribe today so you don’t miss:
GOD AND CHURCHILL:
THE EVIDENCE EXPOSED
COMING ON NOVEMBER 6
CHURCHILL: “According to Holy Writ” – Part 1
What Churchill himself professed to believe about God, the Bible, Moses and Jesus
Jonathan Sandys, a great-grandson of Britain’s wartime Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, along with former White House aide and current senior associate pastor of Houston’s Second Baptist Church, Wallace Henley, reveal compelling evidence that overturns the erroneous belief that Churchill was either an agnostic or an atheist.
Available now in both the United States of America and the United Kingdom.
CREDITS
QUOTATIONS
“London will be attacked” – SANDYS/HENLEY – GOD AND CHURCHILL: How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny Changed His Troubled World and Offers Hope for Ours, p.4
‘High Power’ – Ibid, p.37
“We shall go on to the end” – LANGWORTH, Richard, Churchill by Himself, p.21 Never Surrender
‘My warnings over the last six years’ – SANDYS/HENLEY – GOD AND CHURCHILL: How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny Changed His Troubled World and Offers Hope for Ours, p.82
IMAGES
Winston S. Churchill: Author’s personal collection
The Nazis on the March: https://literaturesalon.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/lebensraumnewyorktimes.jpg
Winston S. Churchill at Chartwell (1964): Author’s personal collection
GOD & CHURCHILL, front cover, 2015 – (US-Edition)
November 2, 2015
CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 4 – “It will fall to me to save the Capital and save the Empire”
London will be attacked…I shall be in command of the defences of London
and…it will fall to me to save the Capital and save the Empire.’
Winston S. Churchill
Harrow School, 1891
Winston S. Churchill
Over the past few posts we have been exploring the prophesy Great-Grandpapa spoke of to a school friend at Harrow. In CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 3 – “I shall be in command of the defences of London”, I highlighted the widely accepted distinction between predictions and prophesy.
Looking more closely at the second part of the prediction: “I shall be in command of the defences of London”, I drew your attention to the improbability that firstly Churchill, without intervention, could not have accurately predict that he would be “in command of the defences of London,” at a time of war. And secondly, with his dismal political record, he would be the most unlikely person the world would have turned to for leadership in a crisis.
“It will fall to me to save the Capital and save the Empire”
As with the initial part of Churchill’s prediction, “London will be attacked,” a skeptic can again claim the second part, “I shall be in command of the defences of London,” as a very lucky guess. However, Wallace and I maintain that while one may dismiss the first part as luck, the second as improbability and/or luck, the third and final part of Churchill’s prophesy: “It will fall to me to save the Capital and save the Empire” cannot be written-off so easily.
Murland de Grasse Evans was stunned to hear his chum speak with such confidence of an impossible to foresee future. Had they not been friends, Evans might have dismissed Churchill as arrogant, but, as he states in his letter to Churchill’s son Randolph, ‘Like others at Harrow, I was greatly attracted by this extraordinary boy. His commanding intelligence, his assurance, his bravery, charm and indifference to ugly surroundings.’ Murland recalled how Great-Grandpapa began to warm to his subject, and although he was unable to state with clarity the exact career path he would follow, he was clear that he knew where he would end up: “I have dreams about it.”
With great confidence, clearly not false, Churchill assured Murland that he would “save the Capital and the save the Empire.” Even if one writes-off the first and second parts of his prophesy as luck, one cannot dismiss the impossibility of the accuracy of this final claim. In ‘God and Churchill’, we certainly draw attention to the fact that Great-Grandpapa desperately craved the attention of his parents, and one might be forgiven for assuming that this was yet another plea for fulfillment. However, history confirms that Churchill was right in 1891.
On May 8, 1940, Winston Churchill was asked by King George VI, to lead Britain through the remaining years of the Second World War. ‘My warnings over the last six years had been so numerous, so detailed, and were now so terribly vindicated.’
On September 7, 1940, as Great-Grandpapa had predicted in 1891, London became a battlefield as squadrons of the Luftwaffe dropped bombs on the innocent population below. Churchill was resolute: “Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.”
“It will fall to me to save the Capital and save the Empire.” – On May 8, 1945, 54-years after his prediction, Winston Churchill stepped out onto the balcony of the Ministry of Health building in London on VE-Day to the cheers of thousands of men, women and children who were lining the streets throughout London.
“London will be attacked…I will be in command of the defences of London…It will fall to me to save the Capital and save the Empire.” – Churchill’s prophesy came true exactly as he stated it. Religions around the world consider that prophesy can only come from God. Therefore, Churchill had to be right in his own belief that ‘without the assistance of that High Power which interferes in the eternal sequence of causes and effects more than we are always prone to admit, I [Churchill], could never succeed.’
Great-Grandpapa was the most unpopular man in Britain with little credibility abroad. He did not seek the office he filled, but was asked to serve. Without the interference of that ‘High Power’ Great-Grandpapa referred to, Churchill could never have risen to save Britain and the world from the evils of Hitler and his Nazis. Further evidence of this comes when one flips the coin and considers the result had Churchill actually been both a successful and popular politician.
Subscribe today so you don’t miss:
GOD AND CHURCHILL:
THE EVIDENCE EXPOSED
COMING ON NOVEMBER 4
CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 5
‘That High Power which interferes’
The final part of the in-depth analysis of Churchill’s 1891 prediction reveals the impossibility of its accuracy unless inspired by ‘that High Power’
Jonathan Sandys, a great-grandson of Britain’s wartime Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, along with former White House aide and current senior associate pastor of Houston’s Second Baptist Church, Wallace Henley, reveal compelling evidence that overturns the erroneous belief that Churchill was either an agnostic or an atheist.
Available now in both the United States of America and the United Kingdom.
CREDITS
QUOTATIONS
“London will be attacked” – SANDYS/HENLEY – GOD AND CHURCHILL: How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny Changed His Troubled World and Offers Hope for Ours, p.4
‘Like others at Harrow’ – EVANS, (Reverend) Murland de Grasse – Letter to Randolph S. Churchill, (c. 1940/50)
“I have dreams about it” – SANDYS/HENLEY – GOD AND CHURCHILL: How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny Changed His Troubled World and Offers Hope for Ours, p.4
‘May warnings over the last six years’ – SANDYS/HENLEY – GOD AND CHURCHILL: How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny Changed His Troubled World and Offers Hope for Ours, p.82
“Hitler knows that he will” – LANGWORTH, Richard – Churchill by Himself, p.21 ‘Their Finest Hour’
‘without the assistance’ – SANDYS/HENLEY – GOD AND CHURCHILL: How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny Changed His Troubled World and Offers Hope for Ours, p.37
IMAGES
Winston S. Churchill: http://www.rps.org/~/media/Images/News/MP/churchill2.ashx
GOD & CHURCHILL, front cover, 2015 – (US-Edition)
October 30, 2015
CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 3 – “I shall be in command of the defences of London”
London will be attacked…I shall be in command of the defences of London and…
it will fall to me to save the Capital and save the Empire
Winston S. Churchill
Harrow School, 1891
Winston S. Churchill
In CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 2 – “London will be attacked”, we began a more in-depth examination of Great-Grandpapa’s prediction at sixteen years old. I raised the point that in the same year that Churchill made his prediction, physicist Samuel Langley attempted flight with his steam-powered Aerodrome. Although not widely reported in the media, Wallace and I found no evidence to support whether Churchill knew of this attempt or not, and if so, did he then use the information to predict that London would one day be attacked using aircraft?
Despite being highly improbable that without aircraft, London would be a battlefield, and no evidence to confirm Churchill’s awareness of Langley’s attempt which could have prompted a lucky guess, we felt it was best to dismiss this part of his prediction, and instead move on to analyzing the remaining two parts, both of which aided us further in our belief that Great-Grandpapa’s life was directed by ‘that High Power which interferes in the eternal sequence of causes and effects more often than we are always prone to admit.’
“I shall be in command of the defences of London”
Churchill’s awareness of Langley is irrelevant. The validity of the prediction does not hinge on London being attacked. Churchill’s words take on new understanding when one analyses his confident statement that he would be “in command of the defences of London.”
Looking at the raw statement, one realizes that in order for this prediction to come true, Churchill would have had to accurately predict that there would be an attack on London, and that at the time of that attack, he would either be, or rise to be, “in command of the defences of London.” This part of the prediction is too specific to dismiss as a lucky guess. Only in the light of history can we appreciate the magnitude of his words fifty years before the start of the Second World War.
This is where religions around the world separate prediction from prophesy. A prediction can come from anyone and may or may not come true, however, prophesy can only come from God, and in order for it to be considered a prophesy, it must come true exactly as has been spoken.
“Will you be a general, then, in command of the troops?” Evans asked.
“I don’t know,” Britain’s future leader replied. “Dreams of the future are blurred, but the main objective is clear.”
Unsure of his career path, Churchill was very confident that whatever it was, it would be a great adventure, “I have dreams about it,” he told Murland.
In reviewing Churchill’s career path, his brief stint in the British Army, his time as a war correspondent, and then his political career to 1940, one might find it hard to imagine that what Great-Grandpapa spoke of in 1891, could possible become a reality. Aircraft had been invented as was predicted however, throughout the 1920s and 30s, Churchill’s popularity and political career were at an all-time low. Churchill’s staunch position against Indian Independence pushed him to the backbenches of Parliament during the 1920s, and his warnings throughout the 30s of the rising threat of Hitler and the Nazis kept him there.
Misunderstood and labeled out-of-date because he was in favor of keeping the Empire going, Churchill refused to back down. He saw the vulnerability of Britain without the protection of “our Empire beyond the seas,” and fought tirelessly to prevent its demise. When Hitler came to power in 1933, this further fueled Great-Grandpapa’s fear that Britain alone would be easy pickings: “I dread the day when the means of threatening the heart of the British Empire should pass into the hands of the present rulers of Germany,” he told fellow Members of Parliament in 1934. His warnings fell on deaf ears and he was shouted down. Undeterred by the rejection, Churchill rose again, and kept rising, despite all his colleagues threw at him.
“I shall be in command of the defences of London.” How unlikely this part of the prediction was. Churchill was widely considered a failure in his career. The First World War tore him down over the Gallipoli disaster. Returning Britain to the Gold Standard as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1920s, proved him to be useless with finance as Britain sunk into a deep depression. His stance against The India Bill and then the warnings of the threat of Hitler, further confirmed the uselessness of the out-of-date, ageing lunatic, who clearly missed the battlefields of his youth. Throughout his political career, Churchill proved the accuracy of his 1904 statement: “In war you can only be killed once, but in politics many times.” – Based on his record, Churchill was the last person one would call upon to lead in a time of crisis. However Destiny was to play its hand, and on May 10, 1940, Winston Churchill was, as per his prophesy, invited to “be in command of the defences of London,” and serve Britain as our wartime Prime Minister.
Subscribe today so you don’t miss:
GOD AND CHURCHILL:
THE EVIDENCE EXPOSED
COMING ON NOVEMBER 2
CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 4
“It will fall to me to save the Capital and save the Empire”
An in-depth analysis of Churchill’s 1891 prediction reveals the impossibility of its accuracy unless inspired by ‘that High Power’
Jonathan Sandys, a great-grandson of Britain’s wartime Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, along with former White House aide and current senior associate pastor of Houston’s Second Baptist Church, Wallace Henley, reveal compelling evidence that overturns the erroneous belief that Churchill was either an agnostic or an atheist.
Available now in both the United States of America and the United Kingdom.
CREDITS
QUOTATIONS
“London will be attacked” – SANDYS/HENLEY – GOD AND CHURCHILL: How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny Changed His Troubled World and Offers Hope for Ours, p.4
‘that High Power which interferes’ – Ibid, p.37
“Will you be a general” – Ibid, p.4
“I have dreams about it” – Ibid, p.4
“our Empire beyond the seas” – Ibid, p.86
“I dread the day when” – LANGWORTH, Richard – Churchill by Himself, p.155
“In war you can only be killed” – Ibid, p.31
IMAGES
Winston S. Churchill: http://www.rps.org/~/media/Images/New...
GOD & CHURCHILL, front cover, 2015 – (US-Edition)
October 28, 2015
CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 2: “London will be attacked”
Winston S. Churchill c. 1891)
In CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 1, I quoted Great-Grandpapa’s prediction in 1891, at sixteen years old, taken from a letter written by friend and fellow Harrow student, Murland de Grasse Evans, and sent to Churchill’s son Randolph when he was named his father’s official biographer.
London will be attacked…I shall be in command of the defences of London and…it will fall to me to save the Capital and save the Empire
We discussed the prediction in total in the first part, and it was from this evidence that my co-author, Wallace Henley and I began to deepen our research to determine if Great-Grandpapa had been correct in his own belief that his life was both directed and protected by, ‘that High Power which interferes in the eternal sequence of causes and effects more often than we are always prone to admit.’
Over the next few weeks I am going to put forward a more in-depth analysis of Churchill’s initial prediction. “London will be attacked”, begins separating the truth of Great-Grandpapa’s personal faith from the myth.
“London will be attacked”
In 1891 Victorian England, London as a battlefield was an improbable concept to grasp. “We are forever safe from invasion, since the days of Napoleon,” Murland de Grasse Evans told his friend and fellow Harrow student, sixteen year old Winston Churchill. But Great-Grandpapa was adamant. “London will be attacked”
United Kingdom (London highlighted)
When looking at a map of Great Britain one can see the improbability of London being a battlefield. In order to reach the Capital one would need to approach by sea, and the Royal Navy, with all its mighty strength, would have easily repelled any threat to our shores. If luck however had allowed a large force to land undetected, the British Army, and indeed every man, woman and child, would have fought fervently in the fields and in the streets. The battle would have been very bloody and before the enemy could have reached London, they would have sustained great losses.
“We are forever safe from invasion, since the days of Napoleon.” Murland was right, before the invention of aircraft, London was one of the safest locations in England.
Samuel Langley
In the same year Churchill predicted his future, physicist Samuel Langley managed to fly his steam-powered Aerodrome in America for less than a mile before it ditched. There was little rush by the media to report the event, so it is highly unlikely that Churchill would have known anything of it, and no evidence to support it either way. For the sake of argument let’s assume Churchill had seem some obscure report and dismiss the power of prophesy from his words. By luck from that, he could have extrapolated what he did some years later, that aircraft would be the weapon of future warfare, and this would put London within measurable reach of any European enemy.
This leaves us with his confident statement that in such an event, “I shall be very prominent in the defence of London…in the high position I shall occupy, it will fall to me to save the Capital and save the Empire.”
At sixteen years old, how possible is it that Churchill, unsure of his future career, could predict with such accuracy, the destiny that would be fulfilled forty-nine years later?
Subscribe today so you don’t miss:
GOD AND CHURCHILL:
THE EVIDENCE EXPOSED
COMING ON OCTOBER 30
CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 3
“I shall be in command of the forces”
An in-depth analysis of Churchill’s 1891 prediction reveals the impossibility of its accuracy unless inspired by ‘that High Power’
Jonathan Sandys, a great-grandson of Britain’s wartime Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, along with former White House aide and current senior associate pastor of Houston’s Second Baptist Church, Wallace Henley, reveal compelling evidence that overturns the erroneous belief that Churchill was either an agnostic or an atheist.
Available now in both the United States of America and the United Kingdom.
CREDITS
QUOTATIONS
“London will be attacked” – SANDYS/HENLEY – GOD AND CHURCHILL: How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny Changed His Troubled World and Offers Hope for Ours, p.4
‘that High Power which interferes’ – Ibid, p.37
“We are forever safe” – Ibid, p.4
IMAGES
Winston S. Churchill: http://www.britain-magazine.com/carou...
Map of United Kingdom: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...
Samuel Langley: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...
GOD & CHURCHILL, front cover, 2015 – (US-Edition)
October 26, 2015
CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 1
London will be attacked…I shall be in command of the defences of London
and…it will fall to me to save the Capital and save the Empire
Winston S. Churchill
Harrow School, 1891
Winston S. Churchill
Even at sixteen years old, Winston Churchill had a sense of the great destiny that awaited him. His unlikely prediction to friend and fellow Harrow student, Murland de Grasse Evans one summer Sunday evening in 1891, is only possible in the light of history. Its discovery became one of the cornerstones supporting the contention in God and Churchill, that Great-Grandpapa himself was correct in his belief that throughout his life he had been ‘walking with Destiny,’ and his life had been both directed and protected by, as he put it, ‘that High Power which interferes in the eternal sequence of causes and effects.’
It was ‘one of those dreadful basement rooms in the Headmaster’s House,’ Murland recalled years later in a letter he penned to Churchill’s son Randolph, who promptly added it to the ever-increasing stack of documents that had recently landed on his desk after the announcement was made that he would be his father’s biographer. Over 8,000 pages were destined to be written as the official biographies on the life of Britain’s greatest hero, and Randolph would sadly only live to contribute the first two-thousand. In amongst the mess, Evans letter disappeared. It would remain hidden until Sir Martin Gilbert, Randolph’s original researcher who continued the biographies, found it, ‘only after the Churchill papers had been transferred to Oxford from Randolph’s home.’ The startling account revealed the first instance when ‘that High Power’ clearly intervened.
“London will be attacked and I shall be very prominent in the defence of London.”
In a conversation about their aspirations for the future, Evans, Churchill thought, would either go into the diplomatic service or ‘follow his father’s footsteps into finance.’ He was however, less sure of his own career path, ‘but,’ he told Evans, ‘I have a wonderful idea of where I shall be eventually. I have dreams about it.’
Evans pressed Churchill to be more specific, but the young adolescent merely shock his head and replied: “Dreams of the future are blurred, but the main objective is clear…I repeat-London will be in danger and in the high position I shall occupy, it will fall to me to save the Capital and save the Empire.”
Since his death in 1965, many notable historians have dismissed the possibility that Great-Grandpapa had any sort of faith beyond the abilities he himself possessed. However, Churchill himself professed on the night he became Prime Minister, ‘I felt as if I were walking with Destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial.’ Evan’s letter supports Churchill’s 1940 profession which later appeared in the first volume of his six-volume account of The Second World War.
Mislabeled in life and now in death, it was from here that Wallace and I began our journey to separate the truth from the myth and provide evidence that confirms Great-Grandpapa was neither an agnostic nor an atheist but instead a man of faith.
Subscribe today so you don’t miss:
GOD AND CHURCHILL:
THE EVIDENCE EXPOSED
COMING ON OCTOBER 28
CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 2
“London will be attacked”
An in-depth analysis of Churchill’s 1891 prediction reveals the impossibility of its accuracy unless inspired by ‘that High Power’
Jonathan Sandys, a great-grandson of Britain’s wartime Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, along with former White House aide and current senior associate pastor of Houston’s Second Baptist Church, Wallace Henley, reveal compelling evidence that overturns the erroneous belief that Churchill was either an agnostic or an atheist.
Available now in both the United States of America and the United Kingdom.
CREDITS
QUOTATIONS
‘London will be attacked’ – SANDYS/HENLEY – God and Churchill: How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny Saved His Troubled World and Offers Hope For Ours, p.3
‘walking with Destiny’ – Ibid, p.82
‘that High Power which interferes’ – Ibid, p.37
‘one of those dreadful basement rooms’ – Ibid, p. 3
‘only after the Churchill papers had been transferred to Oxford from Randolph’s home.’ – GILBERT, Martin – In Search of Churchill, p.214
“London will be attacked” – SANDYS/HENLEY – God and Churchill: How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny Saved His Troubled World and Offers Hope For Ours, p.4
‘follow his father’s footsteps’ – Ibid, p.3
“I have a wonderful idea” – Ibid, p.4
“Dreams of the future are blurred” – Ibid, p.4
IMAGES
Winston S. Churchill: SANDYS, Celia – Churchill, p.17
GOD & CHURCHILL, front cover, 2015 – (US-Edition)
When Winston Churchill was a boy of sixteen, he already had a vision for his purpose in life. “This country will be subjected somehow to a tremendous invasion . . . I shall be in command of the defences of London . . . it will fall to me to save the Capital, to save the Empire.”
It was a most unlikely prediction. Perceived as a failure for much of his life, Churchill was the last person anyone would have expected to rise to national prominence as prime minister and influence the fate of the world during World War II. But Churchill persevered, on a mission to achieve his purpose. God and Churchill tells the remarkable story of how one man, armed with belief in his divine destiny, embarked on a course to save Christian civilization when Adolf Hitler and the forces of evil stood opposed. It traces the personal, political, and spiritual path of one of history’s greatest leaders and offers hope for our own violent and troubled times.
More than a spiritual biography, God and Churchill is also a deeply personal quest. Written by Jonathan Sandys (Churchill’s great-grandson) and former White House staffer Wallace Henley, God and Churchill explores Sandys’ intense search to discover his great-grandfather―and how it changed his own destiny forever.
October 23, 2015
GOD & CHURCHILL: The Evidence Exposed
BEGINNING MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, Jonathan Sandys, a great-grandson of Britain’s wartime Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, will present the evidence which formed the foundation of his first recently released book:
GOD AND CHURCHILL:
How The Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny Changed His
Troubled World and Offers Hope for Ours
* * * * *
WAS SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL A MAN OF FAITH?
Or was he, as many renowned historians would have us believe, an agnostic or an atheist whose references to God and Biblical quotes in speeches were mere platitudes?
DID GOD DIRECT AND PROTECT WINSTON CHURCHILL AS HE HIMSELF MAINTAINED?
Or was this pure bravado intermingled with luck?
WHAT DO THE FINDINGS IN ‘GOD AND CHURCHILL’ MEAN FOR US TODAY?
* * * * *
Based on the evidence discovered, Jonathan challenges the assumptions of many notable and renowned historians to separate the truth of his great-grandfather’s personal faith from the myth.
“This country will be subjected somehow to a tremendous invasion,” Churchill confidently told a fellow Harrow student at sixteen years old. “London will be attacked [and] it will fall to me to save the Capital and Save the Empire.” – How did Churchill know his destiny in 1891? Was this a prediction or prophecy? What exposure did Churchill have to faith? Did he ever question the religious instruction of his youth?
Over the coming weeks, Jonathan will explore the evidence he and his co-author, former White House aide and senior associate Pastor of Houston’s Second Baptist Church, Wallace Henley, discovered.
When a bomb exploded in 1940, on almost the exact spot where Churchill had been standing, he looked at his longtime bodyguard Walter Thompson and pointed to the sky, reassuring him not to worry, “There is somebody looking after me besides you.” – Was he right, or was this false confidence or bravado? How did Churchill survive on the battlefield of Omdurman? Was it fate or luck that he escaped from South Africa? And what of his near-death experience in the trenches of France during the First World War?
Great-Grandpapa claimed that his life was both directed and protected by what he called, ‘that High Power which interferes in the eternal sequence of causes and effects.’ Wallace and I have sought to present the unbiased facts that disprove the erroneous belief that Churchill was either an agnostic or an atheist. Through the evidence, we show that without the interference of that ‘High Power’ at critical times in Great-Grandpapa’s life, history today would be very different. – Jonathan Sandys
Subscribe today so you don’t miss:
GOD AND CHURCHILL:
THE EVIDENCE EXPOSED
CHURCHILL: “I avow my faith” – Part 1
An in-depth analysis of Churchill’s 1891 prediction reveals the impossibility of its accuracy unless inspired by ‘that High Power’
Jonathan Sandys, a great-grandson of Britain’s wartime Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, along with former White House aide and current senior associate pastor of Houston’s Second Baptist Church, Wallace Henley, reveal compelling evidence that overturns the erroneous belief that Churchill was either an agnostic or an atheist.
Available now in both the United States of America and the United Kingdom.
CREDITS
QUOTATIONS
“This country will be subjected somehow” – SANDYS/HENLEY – God and Churchill: How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny Changed His Troubled World and Offers Hope for Ours, p.3
“There is somebody looking after me” – HICKMAN, Tom – Churchill’s Bodyguard, p.106
‘that High Power which interferes’ – SANDYS/HENLEY – God and Churchill: How the Great Leader’s Sense of Divine Destiny Changed His Troubled World and Offers Hope for Ours, p.37
IMAGES
GOD & CHURCHILL, front cover, 2015 – (US-Edition)
October 11, 2015
EUROPE: In or Out?
‘The idea underlying the conception of United Europe is very simple. It is the universal desire of all ordinary men and women to live their lives in peace, to bring up their children in freedom, and to reap the just fruits of their day’s work – instead of dwelling, as they do now, under the lasting shadow of tyranny, poverty and war.’
Winston S. Churchill
European Movement and the Council of Europe
THE CRISIS
Britain is facing a semi-crisis as time marches forward for us to decide whether we want to remain as part of the European Union or not. Winston Churchill, who was in favor of a union of nations that would protect each other with a common European Defence Force, may today look at the Union and encourage us to press forward, but with caution.
Britain’s initial entry into a European Union was out of urgent necessity as the European countries ravished by Germany during the Second World War, desperately needed help in their recovery. However, Great-Grandpapa and the European Union architects all foresaw the very type of union we have today.
‘Plans must be prepared for the permanent and organic unification of Europe. These should include:
The grant of a Common Citizenship, without loss of original nationality;
The creation of a single European Defence Force;
The development of a unified economic system; and finally
The conclusion of a European Union or Federation with an elected Parliament’
We the British, complain fervently about the dictates sent down to us from our European overlords in Brussels, but Brussels is merely enacting all its architects originally envisioned. However, it is our responsibility as the people to ensure our representatives in London keep us informed and ensure that there is full disclosure from our representatives in Brussels. And we the people must also be given the right to choose at each stage. Questions of a single currency and a European Defence Force, cannot be agreed upon just by the Members of Parliament in London or Brussels, this is a question for us, the people and NOT with a simple “IN/OUT” question.
CORRUPTION
I am convinced that Churchill and the other European Union architects were right in their initial ideas. However, they did not sadly make a provision addressing corruption in the governance of the Union, as was made similarly by America’s founding fathers. Corruption in an organization the size the European Union may always be unavoidable. However, we as member-states elect our individual national governments to oversee this aspect and ensure that there is an active check and balance system in place. If corruption is allowed to run freely in Europe, our national governments are as much to blame as those perpetrating the corruption.
THE SINGLE CURRENCY QUESTION
The architects of the Union envisaged a single European currency, similar to that in the United States of America. Although in recent years the Euro has proved less than reliable, and had Britain been part of it we would most certainly have suffered negatively, we should accept that a single currency is the most practical way to trade among our European Allies, however, as with the European Defence Force, we need to ensure this is the right move and that move is made at the right time. I love our British Pound, as do many of us, and before we even consider giving it up, we need to understand the full implications. Single currency trading certainly overcomes the issues of exchange rates, but if asked, in this current climate, I am not convinced that we in Britain would be prepared to risk all as was previously done by other European nations. I personally don’t wish to see a single currency in Britain. I am very happy to pay the exchange rate to trade with Europe. Much work is needed to ensure the stability of the Euro and the single currency idea must NOT be forced upon nations. We have a right to choose, and that right should be respected. If Britain opts to remain in Europe but not adopt the single currency, we should not receive threats of expulsion, as was the case when it was first rolled out. The question is best left to those who better understand economic systems as to how a single currency can be kept buoyant. It is however a fact that all currencies rise and fall, but rarely collapse completely. Further investigations need to be carried out and proof of stability needs to be established before Britain should be prepared to even consider adopting such a risky idea.
COMMUNICATION
The European Parliament needs to be more accessible by the peoples of the member-nations. Our European representatives need to not only report back to us more frequently, but be more visible and more prepared to hold open discussions. This will offer the opportunity for British subjects to participate in the process and it will, I feel sure, make things easier for our representatives in the long run. I am convinced that the reason there is such apathy towards the European Union is because there is a lack of understanding on our part. However, that lack of understanding has not been caused by the peoples of the member-states, but by the representatives who disappear to Brussels and are only ever seen again when they want to have our vote. Great-Grandpapa recognized that visibility as a leader was vital to ensure the support and cooperation of the people he represented during the Second World War. A European Union is quite a daunting prospect, and we the people need reassuring. Visibility and a willingness to explain things to us would go a long way to winning our support for potentially further integration.
TRADITION PROTECTION
‘Independent but not isolationist, pacific but not pacifist…One of the aims and advantages of a European Union, achieved by consent, will be to preserve these national traditions and distinctive characteristics which, under forceful totalitarian unification, would assuredly be obliterated.’
In recent years a lack of communication on the part of our European representatives has caused friction over simple changes. We have no wish to be isolationists, but we equally have no desire to be dictated to without explanation and a chance for discussions. The traditions of member-states must be preserved and no individual nation or act of European Parliament should be able to overturn or change that.
ECONOMIC STRENGTH = SAFETY
It is a true fact that the more economically strong a nation is, the easier it is to ensure its security. The pro-argument is that a united Europe with a single currency and single European Defence Force will make it much more difficult for any one nation in the world to take action against us. The philosophy of “you go to war, we go to war,” comes into play and we are able to ensure that in unity we will find peace and security. The architects put in a provision to protect us from nations inside Europe who seek to overthrow. This provision was created in the wake of the Second World War. However, an economically strong Europe will be much harder to pick off and the question of a European Defence Force is one that will continue to haunt us. There are advantages, and at the time when Great-Grandpapa was promoting such an idea it seemed the most sensible, but the world has changed dramatically and I am not convinced that looking at the European Union we have now, Churchill would support the idea of a common defence force. We are certainly facing some very troubling times, but we need to make balanced decisions based on the facts, not our fears. This is most certainly an issue that needs much more discussion and before it is settled we need to ensure that such a force can only be used for good.
DID EDWARD HEATH MISLEAD US?
According to some, former Prime Minster Edward Heath misled Britain when he encouraged the people to sign-up for a union of European nations that would enjoy open-trade agreements, and live in the security of knowing that as a union of sovereign nations, we would be protected from outside attacks. However, although he may not have shared the complete plan with our people, the ideas he was promoting were not new concepts but had in-fact been discussed both during and since the end of the Second World War.
Great-Grandpapa’s support for the initial European Union proposal was clearly fueled by his concern that without the protection of the British Empire which began to collapse in 1946, Britain would be as vulnerable as she had been against Germany following the French surrender in June 1940.
CHURCHILL’S PLAN FOR POST-WAR BRITAIN
At a private meeting at the Yalta Conference, Churchill and Roosevelt spoke of plans for the future of Britain once Germany was finally forced to surrender. As part of the Lend-Lease agreement, Roosevelt, who disliked the British Empire, forced Churchill to agree to give India her independence following the end of the war. Churchill recognized that once India had gone, others would follow and Britain, a tiny country in comparison to potential enemies such as Russia, would be left alone and could in future years be much more easily subdued. It was my great-grandfather who proposed that Britain become a “protectorate” member of the United States, retaining her sovereignty, while at the same time ensuring no repeat of 1939, where America could not join the war effort until Japan attacked at Pearl Harbor, and Germany declared war on America. Sadly, when President Roosevelt died in April 1945, and Great-Grandpapa lost the subsequent General Election, this plan was not carried forward by either of the leaders who followed. A European Union was the next best thing and due to our proximity and continent position, was considered to be the best solution to not only ensure continued peace but protection as well. ‘When the Nazi power was broken, I [Churchill], asked myself what was the best advice I could give to my fellow citizens in our ravaged and exhausted continent. My counsel to Europe can be given in a single word: “Unite!”’
THE WORDING OF THE QUESTION
The issue with the proposed IN/OUT referendum is going to be the wording. To walk completely out of Europe thus ending both the protection and also all trade agreements would, I feel, be suicide. However, no European nation should be permitted to overstep their remit in uniting Europe as a whole at the cost of a single nation’s wishes. For example, discussions must be held without threats of expulsion. If one member-state disagrees with a policy, discussions must be held until the single state, (in the case of a single state), agrees to move forward. The single currency question is a prime example of this. Although a single currency is widely considered more practical, not all nations are ready to adopt one. Respect should be given to those who choose not to participate at this moment, and those who want to proceed should be allowed to do so freely. To admonish or diminish the genuine fears of other nations to take such a mammoth step is destructive to the ultimate aim and purpose of the Union. We are not always going to agree, ‘But if we are to achieve this aim [of peace and security], if we are to win this supreme reward, we must remove every impediment. We must conquer ourselves. We must rise to a higher level. Old feuds must die. Territorial ambitions must be forgotten. National rivalries must be confined to rivalry as to which can render the best service to the common cause.’ The European Court exists today to settle all disputes, and we should encourage our representatives to avail themselves of its justice when we feel an injustice has been done.
We talk of being asked “the question”, but I personally feel it is much more complicated than that. In my view we need a checklist of things we are prepared to agree to and things we are not. It is up to our representatives in London and Brussels to convince us with debate. To assume we won’t understand the answers, or to blindly ask “IN/OUT?” is irresponsible, and with such serious ramifications one way or the other, we need a question “IN/OUT?” to be accompanied by more specific questions. As with our other elections, the majority decision is carried and therefore if out of the total number of Britons who vote, 51% say “NO” to a single currency, then the people have spoken and our decision should be respected and upheld by our representatives. However, we the people MUST be asked. It is argued that to ask the people every time a new policy is proposed would hold the process up indefinitely, I argue that to not ask us would be criminal, considering we are ones being expected to accept it. We are not talking about our own countries alone where we have the power to oust our leaders and representatives and their policies can be overturned by the members we have elected. We don’t vote for the French representatives and they don’t vote for ours. By agreeing to allow the European Union to unilaterally decide our fate based on the majority of Members of the European Parliament, requires a trust on our part and an understanding on theirs. The European Union is still very new and giving it this level of power could be a fatal mistake. The United States of America, while having a centralized government, makes laws to protect the union as a whole. However, the individual states have the power to make laws of their own. The Federal Government has limited power and not dictatorial power over the individual states. This should be the case with the European Union. What works in France, may not work in Britain, therefore, any change that affects our way of life in our individual countries, should by right be put before us, not foisted upon us. We are all part of the building process and like it or not, we are the architects now. Asking us if we want a European Defence Force, or a single currency, is how it should be.
I am convinced that the European Union is not the monster it has been made out to be. I firmly believe that many of us who are skeptical are so only because our representatives’ hide in Brussels once elected and are only heard from again when they need our vote for reelection. We cannot give Europe the power to dictate, and only when our individual countries are respected for the decisions we make, should we even consider allowing Europe to govern. States-rights. In my view that is the only way that a European Union can work. I believe that Great-Grandpapa would agree because he himself used the United States of America as the template for the formation of the Union. However, true and open representation is a requirement before anything further can happen.
OPEN GOVERNMENT
We need a more open European government where our representatives communicate with us and listen to our concerns. We need honest answers to questions and we need to be kept informed. One day, I would love to travel throughout Europe and be able to say ‘“Here I am at home.”’
Britain, it is up to us as the people to apply pressure to our government to word the question sensibly. It is up to us to communicate with our Members of the British Parliament to force our representatives in Europe to visit more and explain the processes, keeping us both informed and involved. This will probably be the last time we are asked what we want with regard to European membership, let’s make an informed decision and actually make it count. I would urge you to write to your Member of Parliament and push for the correct wording that enables us to either remain in the Union, while retaining our sovereignty, giving us the right as individuals to choose, retain the trade agreements, and travel perks, or leave the union completely. A simple “IN or OUT?” question is unacceptable. This is a vital choice that will cost us dearly if we go the wrong way. Let’s get a grip and ensure we are fully informed and choose the right way to vote.
‘By our combined exertions we have it in our power to restore the health and greatness of our ancient continent-Christendom as it used to be called. No longer a breeding ground for misery and hate, Europe shall arise out of her ruins and troubles, and, by uniting herself, carry the world a step nearer to the ultimate unity of all mankind.’
Winston S. Churchill
IMAGES
European and Union Jack Flags:
http://nation.foxnews.com/sites/nation.foxnews.com/files/styles/story_624_300/public/2826cropped.png
Direction:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/3017264/images/o-EUROPEAN-UNION-facebook.jpg
Referendum:
http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/People+Pledge+Campaign+UK+Referendum+EU+Membership+ibhF_uh9Zg2l.jpg
Not Speaking:
https://forwardforum.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/image-1.jpg
QUOTATIONS
All quotations, unless otherwise specified, have been taken from European Movement and the Council of Europe – published on behalf of The European Movement
